Q: You were recently featured in a major news article in Columbus' Business First.  What has the reaction been from that?

It's been great.  We also created a little Youtube video of the digital pen voting process and put it out on the web site.  It's about 4 minutes long. We've been amazed at the number of hits it has had over the last 4 days its been out.  It's not shot by Spielburg, but it does get the point across.  So the story has generated a lot of interest.  We are also hoping to attract some local VC money so we can continue our efforts to develop this system.

Q. I see that California just decertified their touchscreen (DRE) voting devices.  Talk about good timing.  How does this decision help or hurt you?

Well, it helps tremendously.  What really shocks me the most about the CA decision (Bowen) is that the same vendors that failed to provide adequate security and did not take these concerns seriously are the same vendors that CA counties will have to buy from when they get Optical Scan systems!! Go figure.  I just don't get that.  How in the hell is this punishing Diebold, for example, when they already sold the DREs, now they can come in and sell their op scan systems to the same county?  Don't we deserve better--both as taxpayers, and as election administrators?  If I was running some county and I had to move to a new technology I'd be angry that my choices would once again be the big four.  The same thing has happened in Florida where all 15 DRE counties have to get new equipment.  So Sequoia, for examples, offers to buy back the DREs for $1 each (yes, $1) and then sell them optical scan equipment.  And no one really seems to point this out.  It's more than just getting rid of DREs--this is serious money and what happens is that we continue to keep out the little guys while peddling to the big guys that brought us this mess in the first place.

Q.  It seems like there aren't enough certified vendors.  Is that true?

The certification process is this country is an absolute joke.  It's broken and it doesn't look like it is going to be fixed any time soon.  The big vendors complain about this, but they have been the biggest beneficiaries of it.  After all, it keeps the little vendors out.  What we need, and what I'm calling for, is a new WAY of dealing with these issues such as certification.  We need an end to what I call the Adversarial Model between vendors and SOSs and counties.  That is a situation that should have never been allowed to develop that way, but it did.  And there is plenty of blame to go around on that score.  I'm not just talking about adding new labs or new requirements.  I think we need a new attitude about vendors.  

Q. What about the activist community?  Have they been helpful in this venture? You would think they would be screaming to support a new paper-based voting system that is not connected to the big 4 vendors.  What has their reaction been?

For the most part it is a mixed reaction.  As I just mentioned we have this adversarial model out there. Activists are naturally skeptical about vendors.  Vendors have been in the activists' crosshairs for about 5 years now.  So there's an immediate skepticism on their part.  But when you try to come out with something that is paper based and shows great promise of being a better voting system, they fall into three distinct camps.

Q. Can you elaborate on these 3 types of activists?

Sure.  It's a bit artificial, but we can break them up into 3 camps.  The first camp is truly interested in election reform and they really want to learn about the process and help find ways to improve it.  They do a good job of keeping it non partisan and non-shrill.  We want to work with these people.

The other group is the Luddite group.  They simply hate any technology.  They believe that the only system that should exist in America is hand counted paper ballots.  Now, I respect someone that comes out and says that.  At least that is honest, and you know where they stand.  But a great deal of these people won't lay their cards on the table.  I can always detect these people because they immediately start pooh-poohing anything new.  They are negative from the start and it never ends.  To those people I suggest that they quit hiding and just come out and tell us that they are hand counted paper ballot Luddites and be done with it.  I have no problem with their fight; I just wish they would be clear about what they really think.  The more radical group is now calling for the end of the secret ballot on the pretense that if people announce publicly their choices, then anyone can sit in the voting center and do their own tabulation.  Good luck with that.

The third group is just as bad.  They are the politically motivated activists.  They really don't care about DREs per se they are just angry that Bush won twice.  They believe he stole the elections and they are bitter about that.  They range the gamut from those who truly believe that Diebold controls the outcome of US elections--i.e. somewhere they already have it programmed who will be the next President.  These people are wildly wrong and I try to stay away from them.  These are the people that will mostly go away when their candidates finally win--even if it was by the use of DREs.  When their guys start to win in large numbers they might even become fans of DREs!  But they are out there and there are a million web sites with this emphasis.  But worst of all are those activists that are in this camp that now try to suggest that they are running these objective "think tank" election reform sites.  Some claim to be doing objective 'science' about elections.  But if you look into their backgrounds and their previous work, you can see that they belong to this third camp.  Why they get attention and consulting work is beyond me--but they are out there.

Q. While we are on the subject, what DO you think about hand counted paper ballots?

Interestingly enough, digital paper ballots can be hand counted and done so quite easily.  With our flexible ballot design we can even create some devices that would make the hand counting more accurate.  But save that for a later day.  I guess my position on this is that it doesn't really matter if it's right or wrong, it isn't going to happen anytime soon.  If you want to fight for that, good luck. I think that it would be 10 to 15 years away at the earliest.  Most likely it will never happen.  So I wish them best of luck; just don't stand in the way of everyone else.  It's like fighting to return to horseback riding.  If you want to ride a horse, good for you.  But if you do it on the freeway, expect to get run over.

Q. What has been the reaction from county officials and the people that actually run election?

I think they have been stunned by this technology.  I see people with their jaw down and they say, "I just don't believe it."  Sometimes they tell us that it can't be right--it's too easy.  I love that reaction.  But mostly the reaction has been position.

There are a few people that are problematic.  I'd like to talk about them a bit.  We noticed that several election officials came by and looked at it and their reaction was more or less, "that's cute."  Cute?  Are you nuts?  

It does amaze me that some election administrators have absolutely no intellectual curiosity.  They aren't leaders in my mind.  How can you lead your profession when you don't follow the trends and know what is happening in your industry?   Many of them feel that this isn't worthy of being seen since they can't buy anything anyway.  I don't get that.  This isn't like not going around to a new car lot because you can't buy a new car.  I understand that.  But this is about being on top of what is happening in your field; and if you can't do that, what does it say about you knowledge of the your profession?  Not much, I'm afraid.  And I noticed there are quite a few administrators that approach this with that mentality and that's a shame.

Q. What about those who see it and ask, "Is it certified?"

Well, again they should know the answer to that question.  By merely asking that question they show they don't know their own business.  No it isn't certified.  But that doesn't mean it doesn't work.  That doesn't mean it won't someday be a force in this industry.  So I don't much care for that question if it is a way to dismiss any further investigation.  It's like looking at an experimental solar or electric car and asking if it has all of its DOT certifications. No, but it might someday if you listen and learn and care about it.

We want state officials and election administrators to HELP US get it certified.  Go tell your state officials you WANT this voting system.   We want to hear from states that want something better.  Look, if you think the voting industry has a great reputation because of Diebold, Sequoia and ES&S, then fine -- you get the voting systems you deserve.  But the truth is that your job is immensely harder because these firms have not done a great job.  I know they are in a tough spot, but in many cases they have been their own worst enemy.

Q. One last question before we go.  You say that this systems allows you to see how the marks were interpreted by the computer.  Does that prove that my vote was counted as I see it?

That's a great question.  It is true that it DOES show you how the machine interpreted your marks.  That is, you can see on the screen how well it did.  If it's perfect, that's the way it should work.  If there is something amiss you can re-vote a new ballot.  But let me address this idea of proving how your vote was counted.  I hear a lot about verification.  The truth is that NO SYSTEM can PROVE to you that your vote was counted accurately in the final tally.  And I mean NO SYSTEM.  Not even the much adored hand counted paper ballots (counted in the precinct) will do this.  You have to think it through a bit, but not even that can provide the assurances you want.  Part of this has to do with the idea that the vote is secret.  That means that after it is cast I am divorced from my vote.  So how can I verify it in the final count?  Now there are all kinds of cryptographic solutions and I even have one of Dr. Chaum's mylar "receipts".  I treasure it since it will never see the light of day, but frankly none of these systems will do what they claim.    It's a dead end and a waste of effort.

So NO, when you view the screen and you see that what is on the screen matches what you hold in your hand, that is NOT PROOF that your vote will accurately get placed in the final tally.  But, again, and I can't stress this enough, NO SYSTEM DOES.  Many have tried, all will fail.  But it should provide more confidence about the counting than any optical scan system.

Ask yourself a simple question.  Are you happy with the status quo in elections?

If not, then you should at least consider digital pen voting.